>> ^charliem:

Eugene Mirmin - Astrological waste of space (in this video...).
The science they spoke of was really only that of psychology / sociology, which lets be honest.....they aint real sciences
I was hoping they would have talked way more about how graphics engines simulate real world phenomena, or how the next big thing bound by processing power currently is A.I in NPC's.
Instead we got mumbo jumbo interspersed with interruptions from a halfwit. Wasted time slot


They're real sciences when they use hard evidence to back themselves up. For good reason the "Soft" sciences haven't had a scientific revolution like physics and chemistry has, and it desperately needs one. It's why people get away with such bullshit in the soft sciences that it's hard to take them at all seriously. But there are people who treat them very much like hard sciences and they're making real developments and progress within them, actually proving and testing theorems rather than throwing stuff and seeing what sticks.

There are about 1.5 million years between our ancestors discovering fire and the wheel. Iron, 2500 years after that, and then another 3000 years later, the Age of Exploration, the Renaissance, and the Scientific Revolution. It has only been 109 years since Kitty Hawk, and here we are, watching Curiousity land on Mars, a planet that is an average 150 million miles from Earth, from the comfort of our living rooms.

I must have watched the original 4fps version 30 times. Just an amazing thing for humans to have accomplished in such a relatively short span of time. It just blows me away.

Well, some ideas may have been floating around, but Christians are the ones who put them into practice. Read about Robert Grosseteste and the christians after him who refined his ideas.. The scientific revolution took place is medievil europe, and the people responsible were all devout Christians.

Also, please dont pigeonhole Christians with superstitious pagan religions who cried in horror every time lightning struck..this is the entire point that it is the presumption of Christianity that God created an orderly universe with natural laws that could be observed and verified.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You probably have no idea but the scientific method was created by Christians who believed that matter behaved rationally because God created an orderly universe.
The scientific method was not "created", nor did its origins stem from any particular group. It was was a gradual refinement of repeating observation and experimentation, and it involved Christians, Muslims, and others that predate both religions (it's worth noting the development was during times when people would often be tortured and killed for daring to doubt the existence of a creator).
Most people like to be reasonably sure what is real versus what someone made up and others believed anyway. That's why we test ideas and observations... to know whether a particular belief or possibility holds any real basis in reality.
People used to claim all kinds of magical events that only happened to others. Heck, they still do. We have the scientific method because people got tired of it and wanted to know what was reproducable.

>> ^Longswd:

British Doctor Faked Data Linking Vaccines to Autism, and Aimed to Profit From It
I only have one thing to say to people who directly trade the lives of children for profit - Bowels in or bowels out?


Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts

Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines (Part 1)

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield - the structure of scientific revolutions (Part 2)

Edit:
Dr Wakefield:
"Will the mainstream media now take this real story, the real facts, and actually do their job as journalists and report the facts? Will they report the truth? I doubt it. Why? Because they're owned. Their salaries are paid, albeit indirectly, in large part by pharmaceutical revenues. And the first thing that will happen when they try and do a story which deconstructs these arguments, the BMJ's arguments, and actually reconstructs them in light of the truth, [is that] there will be a call from their advertisers, saying [no]. So what will the mainstream media do? Will it live up to its job, its duty to the people to report the truth, or will it show complete disinterest? Anderson Cooper has been presented with the same nine questions. What was your story based upon? Show us the facts. Did you do your homework? Now are you going to pay similar attention to these documented historical facts? We shall see."

1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

"WAS." A lot has happened since the 7th century. The islamic savage of today would be at home in the past...same honor killings, same tribal warfare.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

The smirking atheist benefits every day from living in a civil society based on religious values. S/he has nothing to compare it against, for there are no functional atheist societies.

Christianity evolved, islam has not. When muslims take over an area, they demand sharia law. Creeping sharia.

It takes a liberal to oppose Christians while supporting islamofascists ready to cut off his head with a scimitar.

Wait, you say "most" muslims aren't violent? A non-violent Muslim is disobeying his holy book and is to be killed by "faithful" muslims.


============================================================================
QM you missed the boat on that one.

There are SO many bigger questions here about tolerance, education, the value of religion, etc.....

The "New Atheism" cannot be taken seriously when it ignores all the positive contributions of religion. If the Atheist cannot see any notable difference between modern Christianity and islam then one hopes this is willful ignorance and not already hardened prejudice.

Additionally, the mantra of "EDUCATION!" as a panacea and substitute for religion rings false, for knowledge is utilized by hero and villain alike. The asshole traitor MUSLIM who shot up Fort Hood was a well-educated doctor.

Without a common tongue how is a nation supposed to communicate? Without common borders, language and culture there is no nation.

You claim the mosque will cause problems. Congratulations, you've taken the first step to understanding the destructiveness of a primitive barbaric excuse of a 'religion' encroaching on an advanced society.

thereligionofpeace.com <---go here to get a glimpse of what islam brings.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Despite what Barack Hussein Vacation says, muslims have never played a significant role in American history, just minor negative roles.
Religious freedom is a two-way street. Tolerating one religion which then demands all others live by sharia law or die is suicide.


1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

Also replace Mosque with "Community Center funded by a major share holder of Fox News."

^ @ MG, I'm guessing you didn't really pay attention. He's not talking solely about things that are currently on the battlefield. He mentions Moore's Law, which I'm guessing you didn't hear. But Moore's Law simply states that technology will double every so many years. 60 years ago we didn't even have computers. 20 years ago the first cellular phone came out. Today, I'm sitting on a laptop that has more processing power than the entire world had 50 years ago with more storage capacity than was actually known just 200 years ago at the beginning of the scientific revolution. I carry a phone that tells me where I am to within feet, connects to the internet, downloads videos, stores a database of everything I want to know, and allows me to interface with it by touch and voice. 10 years ago I got my first cell phone . . . and can you guess what it did? Yeah, it called people. And I had to remember the numbers myself.

Singer isn't talking strictly about what is out there now. That's why he quotes the number of drones present at the beginning of this "war" and how many are currently there. Those Packbots are made by the same company that makes Roomba's. So basically, if you own a Roomba, you're a few sensors and a remote away from a Packbot. (That would be the makers comment, not my own.)

Your comment about still needing an operator . . . That is his entire thesis pretty much. When you have an operator who relies on the machine what is the possible consequence? Shooting down a civilian aircraft? Blowing up 3 civilians because their height profiles match Bin Laden? Yes, both have happened. Both times innocent people died while an "operator" controlled the machine.

Additionally, what happens when the operator has no sense of danger? They can just spray bullets into a crowd hoping to hit the bad guy? Maybe they become too easy to kill? Or maybe a group of hormone laden boys will sit around a tv screen and watch and cheer and people get blown up and get pissed off and want more carnage when their own gets injured? When you operate that Camary you pay with your life if you send it off the road or crash it into another car. If it's remote controlled, all you lose if your car and possibly kill a few others. You know, that HUGE debate over video games . . .

You may think he's a douche, but you completely missed his point because you sat there wanting to slap him instead. Kinda ironic I think, considering if you were there in person you would have listened more, but now that you're disconnected via a screen you're welcomed to wander aimlessly and make careless mistakes.

thanks

I also greatly enjoyed reading your profile page. Being a Terry Pratchett fan, have you read "good omens?" I think that's the only Pratchet I've read, but I've always meant to read more.

Your mention as to the nature of science reminded me of Kuhn's "The structure of scientific revolutions" Here's a synopsis: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote

Favourites

1) Season - Fall, when Delta Burke comes out to see her shadow.
2) Place in the world - In the bushes outside of KP's house, watching him watch me on his live-feed broadcast.
3) Children's book - Encyclopedia Brown or George W. Bush's biography
4) TV Series - South Park and the episode of To Catch a Predator with blankfist.
5) Word - scrumdiddlyumptious
6) Film - American History X
7) Curse - FUCKING COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING BITCH ASS CUNTLICKING SONOFABITCH
Creature - duck-billed platypus
9) Past time - Trivial Pursuit
10) Person - My best friend, who continues to lurk, without joining VS.

Which one?

11) Dog or cat - Tiger
12) Sweet or savoury - This would be a great question for Jeffrey Dahmer.
13) Cereal or Toast - Apple Cinnamon Oatmeal
14) Tan or pale - Fluorescent
15) Shoes or barefoot - Socks
16) Desktop or laptop - special underwater goggles with high-speed wireless Internet
17) Drive or walk - bicycle
18) Drama or comedy - dramedy
19) Sex or food - Why can't we combine them?
20) Futurama or Simpsons - Futurama

The Sift

21) Your fave personal submission - McCain's Press Conference in Front of a Cheese Case, or Tool's Sober
22) A great comment on one of your vids - "More proof god hates orphans." From blankfist, on my post about the orphans.
23) Most off the wall member - QM, if that wall is made of rationality
24) Favourite user name - schmawy
25) Your most used channel - comedy
26) Personal dumbass moment - I only get one? Hmm. Probably when I mocked the brother of Soulja Girl, and bi-polar sufferers everywhere. Good times.
27) Best avatar - Emperor Blankfist
28) Partner in crime - I have so many circle jerk partners. Where to begin?
29) Do people offline know of your sift problem - my lurking best friend does. And my other friends know I love the site.
30) Idea for the site - Give me a crown, and a jar of marmalade.

About you

31) Where do you live - A decent house in Boise in Ada county in Idaho in the United States of America in North America in the western Hemisphere in Earth in the solar system in the Milky Way galaxy in the universe in God's puckered anus.
32) Smoker/non-smoker - It depends on what we're smoking. I don't smoke cigarettes.
33) Left or right handed - LEFT. You know we're better!
34) Hair colour - Brown, with an ever-growing tinge of grey.
35) Relationship status - Single and stalking. I mean looking.
36) How tall - Taller than Jon Stewart, but shorter than Michael Jordan.
37) Children - Hell no. I can barely take care of myself.
38) Ever had an operation - On my left knee when I was ten. They let me watch. It was AWESOME.
39) Best feature - My ravishing blue eyes, or my tattoos.
40) Use four words to describe yourself - intelligent, sarcastic, procrastinator, under-achiever

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) Bring a famous person back from the dead - Bertrand Russell
42) Give 50 grand to any charity - Nope.
43) Send someone on a one way ticket to the moon - Does the Bush administration count as one person?
44) Relive a moment in your life - [redacted] That is privileged information.
45) Have a superpower - Invisibility
46) Find out one thing you've always wanted to know - Find out what would happen if Hitler had won World War II.
47) Have the opposite gender deal with something you have to - Getting a boner in public, in the most awkward of situations. Then trying to hide it.
48) Be president for one hour - FIRE ZEE MISSILES!
49) Delete a period in history - The fall of Greece to the beginning of the scientific revolution.
50) Achieve one thing - Write and publish a book.

“I hate arguing on the internet. I'm going to hazard a guess that NOBODY here is a climatologist or an ecologist of sorts.”

As someone who started some of this discussion I should admit that I am an ecologist who does research and teaches at a US university. It is laughable that someone would suggest that the grant funding I receive is a function of my research results. The US congress appropriates money to fund the National Science Foundation (which funds climate research) without the ability to dictate the use of this money. So, there is no link between scientific finding and grant money appropriation. So, the argument that there is some vested self-interest in scientists claiming a fact to influence their individual research agendas has no support. It is an argument of the ignorant.

I am buoyed at the fact that I started some of this discussion by citing concrete data (no published study has called into question the assumption that human impact is changing the climate), yet all the rebuttals don't cite any FACTS [their emphasis, not mine].

Now on to this consensus issue. Scientific Consensus is the major mechanism though which we achieve understanding of our world. Scientific Consensus is real and by definition apolitical - its never voted on, lobbied for, and never declared defacto. Instead Scientific Consensus is a emergent property of how science is undertaken. When the evidence for one concept overwhelms the evidence for alternatives, then you stop seeing alternatives discussed and Scientific Consensus emerges.

Scientific Consensus is not FACT, that is correct. Concluding that Consensus isn't Science because it itself is not a FACT is a classic logical fallacy. The fact that Consensus isn't a FACT is its strength, and is exactly why Scientists Consensus is so powerful in generating understanding. Data and studies are FACTS, scientists individually interpret those data to reach concussions, and those conclusions taken together become Consensus. Scientists therefore leave that Consensus open to reinterpretation if new data becomes available.

So, the greatest scientists never ‘broke’ with Consensus. They produced new data that called the Scientific Consensus into question. When the Scientists of the time saw these new data, they did not vilify these scientists but they praised them. I suggest you read Kuhn’s Scientific Revolution for a great treatise on history on this subject.

It is clear that if you think Scientific Consensus is crap because you do not actually understand it. It is also clear that you do not ‘believe’ in human’s impact on climate because you have never studied the data.

Another longish vid, and some folks will find this booorrrrinnnnggg, but I like sh*t like this. This is Kevin Kelley giving a lecture on the history of science. Description from page is below. So far he hasn't even mentioned Thomas Kuhn. If you're at all interested in this topic, the history of science, you must read his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

Kevin Kelley has a cool site I like to check on from time to time. Kevin Kelley's Cool Tools http://www.kk.org/cooltools/
================
The Next Fifty Years of Science

Google TechTalks May 9, 2006
47 min 53 sec - May 9, 2006
Kevin Kelly

ABSTRACT The scientific method which provides us with so many ... all » technological goodies does not resemble the science of 1600. Ever since Bacon, science has undergone a slow evolution.

Landmarks in the history of the scientific method are the invention of libraries, indexes, citations, controlled experiments, peer review, placebos, double blind experiments, randomization, and search among others. At the core of the scientific method is the structuring of information.

In the next 50 years, as the technologies of information and knowledge accelerate, the nature of the scientific process will change even more than it has in the last 400 years. We can't predict what specific inventions will arise in the next 50 years, but based on long-term trends in epistemic tools, I believe we can speculate on how the scientific method itself -- that is, how we know -- will change in the next five decades.